Blogging the experience of gameplayhttps://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=1846https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6356Life is strange is a choice based game, but for a short time after each decision is made you can reverse time to make a different decision. So far (through episode 1), it seems that most of the fallout from each decision happens after this grace period, so you still have very little to go on. It gives a much greater feeling of control, however. The puzzles are simple enough, with some creative use of the time travel. The optional ones don't seem to have much impact at all.Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:57:19 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6356&iddiary=11089https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6313Before now, I've talked about how this game felt less like making moral choices and more about making poorly informed decisions. I'm beginning to rethink that positions, as I continue a train of thought I had when I wrote my last log. Having now played while thinking about rule vs act utilitarianism it seems a more convincing argument, and doesn't contradict what I wrote about getting into character. In my opinion, role playing games are a great way to consider events from another perspective (and the University might share this opinion, as I have actually taken a class that was role playing through historical events), and this game causes the player to consider moral axioms from a different perspective. Bigby is constantly put in difficult positions that will hopefully never occur in my personal life, so I haven't considered which rules I would consider to be the moral ones. I haven't had time to fully meditate on this, but it could be a valuable perspective. As far as the moral choices go, this game has a real Film Noir feel to me. In Noir, it's about human failings more than anything else, and Fables are still human in those respects. In a rather dark narrative, you are forced to face the aspects of morality that you generally hope you never face. As a side note, I have found what (to me) is probably the best thing in this game: Cinderella's page in the Book of Fables is briefly visible, and her personal information has all been redacted with a [classified] mark next to it. Those who have read the Fabletown comics may know that Cindy is a secret agent, basically a double-o spy/assassin working for Bigby to maintain Fabletown's secrecy by embarking on James Bond-esque globetrotting adventures. The shoe shop she runs as a front is also visible in the first episode.Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:40:50 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6313&iddiary=11034https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6313So far the game seems to be more geared towards the player having to make character based choices rather than moral ones. I quickly developed a sense of what I wanted this character to be, and then choices became more "what would my character do?" than "what would a moral person do?". That being said it does raise questions about rule vs act utilitarianism. With most decisions you have little to no idea of the repercussions. With act utilitarianism would be culpable if your actions led to problems, with rule utilitarianism it's about the choice. The commentary here could be that act utilitarianism is a problem when the complexity and unpredictability of life are considered.Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:11:28 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6313&iddiary=11020https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6313So far, The Wolf Among Us has done a good job of providing choices, not decisions, which I think is more conductive to creating moral dilemmas. While I haven't played enough yet to see the fallout from the decisions to a great degree, there does seem to be a small amount of payoff so far. A lot of what's happened so far looks like it's going for the "follow the rules or do what's kind" sort of dilemma, where you have to choose where you draw the line. Is some minor infringement more permissible than a more major one that seems unfair.Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:04:10 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6313&iddiary=10985https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6244Team Jump seems like a fascistic/collectivist annihilation-of-the-self team that speaks out against the otherwise individualist elements of the game. That being said, they only succeed when using the abilities of the original team members, which would be a rejection of a conformist view of the world. Additionally, they immediately jump behind the first individual that they come across, and refer to him as their leader. All its individual members are nameless, and instead of being a uniform group of equals they revert to being nameless lackeys to Paul. While they end up serving Paul's noble ends, it does echo many real world examples of collectivist regimes that become extentions of their leader's will. Despite initially being portrayed positively for their teamwork and lack of individuality, I think Team Jump actually serve as an illustration in the game's argument of why individuality is an important virtue.Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:17:11 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6244&iddiary=10905https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6244The character of James seems to me to be an allegory for a homosexual character. His “inverted” nature and “weird” color seem to have been off putting to other AIs in the past. Going with this interpretation, his story in the game could be seen as an attack on morality arguments against homosexuality that come from a perspective of it being “unnatural” or “perverse”. He provides a counter example, and shows a view point on it as being merely a flipped perspective. Similarly, Sarah is a parody of the nobles oblige idea that the game seems to reject. Much like John she is incredibly confident in her abilities, looks down on the others, and joins them despite their “disability”. She subverts John's similar actions by being better than him at his own game, while also being helpless to complete a level without help from the others. Additionally, she is unable to reach the fountain despite the relatively unable Thomas being able to make it. The game as a whole has utilitarian elements to it, with Thomas and the Architects sacrificing themselves for the good of the others. This action is universally shown as a good one in game, and quotes from fictional characters such as AI civil rights campaigners further promote the action.Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:50:21 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6244&iddiary=10887https://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6244A lot of the narration is devoted to character development, despite the characters being quadrilaterals. I think the purpose of this is to develop sympathy for beings that in most science fiction are relegated to villainous roles (AIs, especially AIs that are developing sentience). The game doesn't have any branching paths or choices, so the impact isn't in asking the player to make a decision as much as it is in holding the player's hand in their journey. I don't mean this in a bad way, as much as it is less an empathic moral choice game than it is a more traditional moral story. As far as moral arguments go, a large part of it seems to be about the idea of nobles oblige, the idea that those who are capable have an obligation to help those that are not. The various characters have advantages over others and much of their self image is based on how they can help (or not help) others. A lot of it also ties into the idea of ability/disability, where every character is incapable of solving certain problems by themselves and their advantages can turn into disadvantages.Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:47:37 CSThttps://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6244&iddiary=10874